Comprehensive Essay: The Northern Territory Intervention Controversy

This essay provides a comprehensive analysis of the Northern Territory Intervention, a controversial policy implemented by the Australian government in response to reports of child sexual abuse and social disadvantage within Aboriginal communities. The essay examines the intervention's origins, including the 'Little Children are Sacred' report, and the measures enacted, such as alcohol restrictions, welfare reforms, and land acquisition. It highlights the government's initial focus on child protection, which later shifted towards welfare system reform, and discusses the introduction of the BasicsCard. The essay critiques the intervention, arguing it was often perceived as racist and unjust, citing concerns about the lack of consultation with Aboriginal communities, the undermining of Indigenous rights, and the negative impact on their freedom and self-determination. It explores the views of those in favor and against the intervention, including its impact on school attendance, youth suicide, and the perceived motivations behind the policy. The essay concludes by echoing the majority view that the intervention, while initially focused on protecting children, ultimately served other interests, and that it caused more harm than good to the Aboriginal people.

Northern Territory Intervention 1
Northern Territory Intervention
By (Student’s Name)
Name of the course
Instructor’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Department
Date
1

Northern Territory Intervention 2
Northern territory intervention
The northern territory intervention was the response by the Australian government
following a report on increased family violence and sexual abuse on the minors among the
Aboriginal communities. It is also referred to as the emergency response. A research conducted
on the aboriginal people from the northern territory revealed they were disadvantaged in terms of
health, employment, housing, and justice. This happened way back in June 2007 after a report of
Northern territory on the matter of the sexual abuse among aboriginal children than had become
rampant dubbed “little children are sacred.’ It led to an in-depth research and investigation by the
northern territory board of inquiry and the results were given to the chief minister before they
were released to the public. The plea for action in this report made it become widespread in the
social media and in the political arena and it elicited different opinions and even became a topic
of controversy. This topic enacted as a national emergency within two months after the release
(Weiss, 2018).
The announcements of the measures to be taken to actualize the intervention towards
protecting the indigenous children of the Northern Territory was the first step taken by the
government. Among the measures were; restriction of alcohol, welfare reform, good health by
conducting health checks, education reforms, employment, acquisition of a parcel of land and
restriction of pornography among others. These measures were implemented on seventy three
select communities. A task force of famous Australians, with Dr. Sue Gordon as their chair was
selected to oversee the implementation. This whole exercise was started two months following
the report by the Australian government emphasizing of the urgency of the matter, of increased
sexual abuse on indigenous children. It was however found out that the government had
2

Northern Territory Intervention 3
challenges in the implementation as there was poor coordination between the government
departments and agencies which led to poor intervention. There was also a lack of enough
funding to successfully carry out the implementation.
To improve on the services, it was suggested both the Australian and the northern
territory government should consult with the aboriginal communities. They set out some
principles which were to be used for any policy formulation and implementation on the
aboriginal people of Australia. The principles included improving the governments’ service
provision to the indigenous people, address the culture and language gap the existed as many
aboriginals could not understand most of the mainstream law and concepts. Other principles that
were set aimed at improving community initiatives, maintain local focus while recognizing
diversity, acknowledge Aboriginal law and the people as well and appreciate their presence in
the society, and balance in gender and family representation among others.
The northern territory intervention brought more harm to the Aboriginal people despite
the fact that it was meant to help them. It robbed them of their freedom and power. The year
2008, was marked with a change of government from Howard to Rudd government which
brought about changes regarding the intervention. One of the changes was the introduction of
basic card which was used to manage income and prohibit the purchase of some commodities
like tobacco, alcohol, pornography and gambling products or services. Rudd governance
reinstated some of the legislation made like racial discrimination, the new legislation did not
obey the racial discrimination act. It discriminated against indigenous Australians through land
acquisition and compulsory income management. Rudd’s government changed the focus
completely from protecting the children against sexual abuse to reform of the welfare system. In
the year 2012, the northern territory national emergency response was replaced with the stronger
3

Northern Territory Intervention 4
futures in the northern territory which extended the intervention to 2022 as the legislative basis
for the intervention was to expire in the same year (2012). The stronger futures in the northern
territory had reduced the original measure to three key policy elements. These three were,
tackling alcohol abuse measure, food security measure, and land reform measure. The key
changes made were the expansion of income management through basic cards and increased use
of quarantined payments to 70% (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2016). There were increased
penalties for alcohol intake and pornography example for each can of alcohol taken the penalty
was six months jail term. The policy that links school attendance to continued welfare payments
was expanded. Licenses were issued for community store to ensure distribution of safe and
healthy food and the Commonwealth was given the power to regulate the use of town camps. In
the year 2015, the emphasize is on schooling, community safety, and employment (McDermott
et al, 2017). The funding made also aim at empowering the government of the northern territory
in taking full responsibility for delivery of services in the remote indigenous communities. The
new system has however seen the funding for health reduce by half.
Why northern territory intervention was considered Racist and unjustified
In a research conducted on the young people and aboriginal children most had the views
that though the basic card was helpful as it could buy them toys and food and was not harmful to
anyone, it had aspects of racism since it was only applicable to the indigenous people. The blue
and white label adopted to regulate alcohol and watching of pornographic materials was
discriminatory to the indigenous people where the signs were posted to mean alcohol was
prohibited in the areas. People in towns could have access to alcohol but one could not carry it to
the areas with these signs. Research is done on the same the children and young people
unanimously agreed it was discriminatory and had a negative impact on the people in the areas
4

Northern Territory Intervention 5
with the signs as it was shaming. The policies made during the intervention did not involve the
young people and children from the aboriginal communities even though it directly affected
them. Under the art 12 of the convention on the rights of children, the Australian government
breached its duty since by not involving the young people and children it was going contrary to
the rights prescribed in the art (Cunneen, Goldson and Russell, 2016).
The intervention was unjustified because it undermined the voice of the people as it did
not seek the opinion of the indigenous communities who were to be affected by the intervention.
The co-director Mulka multimedia center in his opinion said by not consulting the aboriginal
communities, it showed a disregard for Yolngu governance and law and behaves if it never
existed. He also thinks it is a show of disrespect to the aboriginal’s culture, land rights and their
rights as human beings. Though it was meant to help it has made the situation even worse for
these residents as they are robbed of their freedom to develop their own community programs
and support their families. The changes that were made did the indigenous people more harm
than good. These changes included; doing away with that allowed access to Aboriginal land,
eradication of government-funded community development projects that gave employment
opportunities, Aboriginal children were put through a mandatory health checks without consent
of parents among others. These examples show that even though the intervention claimed it was
helping the aboriginal communities, it is clear it made the situation worse as it robbed them of
their freedom of choices. Though the main purpose for the northern territory emergency response
was to protect children the act has deviated from core purpose as throughout the act children are
not mentioned even once but there is plenty of reference to land. Some people hold that the
intention for the intervention was not the interest of the aboriginal people but the interest of the
leaders in the aboriginal land. Some people felt they were not gaining anything from the
5

Northern Territory Intervention 6
intervention and it only makes them feel like they are second class citizens. Though at the start it
was about sexual violence this changed within no time to focus on dysfunction in Aboriginal
communities. John Howard in his description of the intervention said it was about normalizing
the remote living indigenous Australians (Roffee, 2016).
The intervention signifies injustice as aboriginal people were forced to leave their culture
and adopt new ways of living. In the remarks of one of the aboriginal elders, he says the
intervention has only created problems for the people and has made them more confused and
frustrated. He felt the white man’s way was being forced on them. The basis on which the
intervention was made was a lie because implied that the children were abused by their own
people. It also implied that the parents to these children were careless about their children
welfare and that Aboriginal women were not able to manage finances. It also suggested that
aboriginal men physically beat their children, are drunkards and child molesting. People felt it
was a dangerous lie as the allegations seem impossible and there was no justifiable evidence.
Furthermore no parent can do such animosity to their children. Some of the card users did not
know how to use them, get balances, report or even how to apply for a greater amount of welfare
to be in cash. This affected the elderly and the illiterate. Some even felt embarrassed especially
when they approach checkouts in supermarkets. Restriction to use of cards was an injustice
because people still needed cash for their children lunch and use in other things that required
cash. The card also robbed the users their right to manage money as all bills were set to
automatically come out of the welfare card. Despite critics, the government extended the use of
the card to 2020 (McDermott et al, 2017). There were inconveniences in the use of the card due
to problems with the system or the delay in Mapuru store as it took the government two years to
approve of it hence it inconvenienced the residents and cost them time to move to the next store.
6

Northern Territory Intervention 7
In my view, I would echo what the majority of people have said. At the beginning the
intervention was important as it focused on helping the children of Aboriginal people of
Australia from sexual abuse. This was however short-lived and the focus changed to land issues
which is a cause for alarm. It makes one conclude that the implementers only used the children to
gain an entry point. The issues also raise criticism as the report suggested the children were
being molested by the same people which means it might be the even the relatives which is
questionable. The issue of child molesting may leave one wondering since it is uncommon thing.
From the studies I have come across I would be tempted to conclude that the implementers of the
intervention had their own interest in the land of the indigenous people of Australia. This can be
justified by the kind of dominance they exerted among the people and the fact they did not even
seek their opinions in policy making and other matters that concerned the people.
Why people were in favor and against the northern intervention
While some of the people were in favor of the intervention a number of other people
thought it was not a good idea and were against it. Those who were against had the following
opinions: they felt that many more children from aboriginal were unwillingly removed from their
culture and families. They also felt the intervention could have used better ways to encourage
school attendance rather than punitive ways. Studies in recent findings show that the number of
attendances dropped from 62.3% to 57.5% which is an indicator that the intervention was not
working (Roffee, 2016). It also increased youth suicides. In the year between the years 2006-
2007 there were 57 reported incidences and increased to 316 between the years 2011-2012
(Roffee, 2016). Income management system made life harder for many and remains a racial
discriminatory measure. 90% of the people under this kind of management are indigenous
(Roffee, 2016). Though restriction of alcohol is still practiced there is no evidence that harmful
7

Northern Territory Intervention 8
drinking has reduced. Another reason why people are against the intervention is the high number
of the indigenous in the jail because of offenses that they should have the freedom to. These and
more reasons explain why the intervention failed. Those who were in favor of the intervention
were of the opinion that; the situation was an emergency and it needed intervention. They argued
that given the state of the situation any action was better than doing nothing. They also said the
measures taken by the intervention to protect the indigenous children were also required by
international law.
8

Northern Territory Intervention 9
References
Cunneen, C., Goldson, B. and Russell, S., 2016. Juvenile justice, young people and human rights
in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(2), pp.173-189.
McDermott, K.M., Brearley, M.B., Hudson, S.M., Ward, L. and Read, D.J., 2017. Characteristics
of trauma mortality in the Northern Territory, Australia. Injury epidemiology, 4(1), p.15.
Roffee, J.A., 2016. Rhetoric, Aboriginal Australians and the Northern Territory intervention: A
socio-legal investigation into pre-legislative argumentation. International Journal for Crime,
Justice and Social Democracy, 5(1), pp.131-147.
Weiss, T.G., 2018. Humanitarian challenges and intervention. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
9